Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 172
March 2014
Abdu v. Bulgaria - 26827/08
Judgment 11.3.2014 [Section IV]
Article 3
Effective investigation
Failure to take reasonable steps to investigate plausible evidence that violent assault was racially motivated: violation
Article 14
Discrimination
Failure to take reasonable steps to investigate plausible evidence that violent assault was racially motivated: violation
Facts – The applicant and one of his friends, both Sudanese nationals, had been involved in a fight with two Bulgarian youths. During the fight the applicant had been slightly injured. He alleged that his attackers, two skinheads, had assaulted him for racist reasons. The police conducted an investigation into these allegations but were unable to ascertain who had started the fight or whether it had been racially motivated. In the absence of evidence on these two factors, the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute any of the individuals involved.
Law – Article 3 (procedural aspect) and Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3: Even though under the Bulgarian Criminal Code, racially motivated acts of violence against other persons constituted a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and a preliminary investigation had been promptly initiated following the incident, the prosecution had nevertheless considered that the offence had not been made out and that, specifically, the racist motivation for the act of violence had not been established.
The prosecuting authorities had concentrated their investigations and analysis on whether it had been the two Sudanese nationals or the two Bulgarians who had started the fight. They had therefore confined themselves to establishing the actus reus, namely the violent acts, merely noting the lack of evidence that the violence had been motivated by racist considerations. The authorities had therefore not deemed it necessary to question the witness about any remarks he might have heard during the incident, or to question the two Bulgarian youths about a possible racist motive for their actions. Yet right from the beginning of the investigation the applicant had claimed that he had suffered racist insults and the two Bulgarian youths had been described in the police report as skinheads – a group known for their extremist, racist ideology. The applicant had, moreover, pointed out these shortcomings in the investigation in the appeal which he had lodged against the decision not to prosecute, drawing the prosecutor’s attention to the way the two youths were dressed and the need to question them specifically about their motives, but these requests had been ignored by the public prosecutor.
In view of these considerations and the specific substantiated allegations voiced by the applicant during the criminal proceedings, the authorities had been in possession of plausible evidence pointing to a possible racist motive on the part of the applicant’s attackers and had failed in their duty to take all reasonable steps to investigate whether the acts of violence had been racially motivated.
Therefore, the legal remedies mentioned by the Government, namely a criminal prosecution for minor bodily injuries and an action for damages against those responsible, could not, in the circumstances of the present case, be considered apt to fulfil the State’s procedural obligations, and the objection raised by the Government as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies had to be rejected.
Furthermore, various national and international agencies had noted cases where the Bulgarian authorities had failed to implement effectively the provisions penalising cases of racist violence.
Conclusion: violation (five votes to two).
Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also: Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], 43577/98 and 43579/98, 6 July 2005, Information Note 77; B.S. v. Spain, 47159/08, 24 July 2012, Information Note 154)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes